McCain now Obama's #1 senate ally

[bascule]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/maccain_obama_allies/2009/01/23/174580.html

 

I kinda feel sorry for McCain... he was probably thinking "I bet I end up running against Hillary. I could cream that bitch!" but instead it's "Oh f*** Obama!"

 

But yeah, seriously... surprising and pretty cool.

[DJBruce]

This is the why I really respect John McCain he is willing to put partisanship aside and get to work to fix the problems with the country. If he was to start siding with Obama I feel that he would more than likely convince a few other republicans to cross the line and work with the current administration.

[Pangloss]

Almost makes one feel sorry for the far right.

[ParanoiA]

This is the why I really respect John McCain he is willing to put partisanship aside and get to work to fix the problems with the country. If he was to start siding with Obama I feel that he would more than likely convince a few other republicans to cross the line and work with the current administration.

 

I'm going to be watching carefully though, because it's one thing to put partisanship aside on subjects agreed upon, it's quite another to sell out your beliefs altogether and make believe that's good government. There is a difference between the parties and neither are doing us any favors focusing on efficient output of legislation at the expense of proper debate and opposition.

 

I find it quite fascinating really. The notion that a legislator that believes capitalist solutions and small government make the country great should pretend as if he loves the idea of nationalized healthcare. That's what I would call bullshit on. "Working together" by chucking your beliefs in the river equates to selfish opportunism to salvage one's career - putting themselves ahead of what's good for the country.

 

Not saying any of this has happened, just advising to be weary of it. These kinds of "moods" if you will, have a tendency to push the pendulum from one extreme to another. It's a short path from legitimately working together to wholesale lopsided compromise.

[padren]

I find it quite fascinating really. The notion that a legislator that believes capitalist solutions and small government make the country great should pretend as if he loves the idea of nationalized healthcare. That's what I would call bullshit on. "Working together" by chucking your beliefs in the river equates to selfish opportunism to salvage one's career - putting themselves ahead of what's good for the country.

 

I think we miss an important factor here - there are a few shades of ideology.

 

You have an extreme left/right, where people who comprise those areas genuinely belief only their ideology can succeed and all other approaches are doomed to fail (think Rush), then you have the "soft left/right" near the middle, that believe one approach or the other is the best but not only way to solve problems.

 

In those "soft" areas people will genuinely believe a strong solution on the opposite side will be better than a weak solution on their own side.

 

In fact, I'd wager to say a large part of politics is driven by not an iron clad certainty in their "one true approach" but a fear of "the other side's solution done badly" - which I can say drove much of my fear about the Bush administration's approach on many issues. I very much like nationalized health care, but I'd dance in the streets for a good free market solution if it was done well, and cringe at one done badly.

 

 

If there's one thing Obama has become known for, it's refusing to embrace a weak solution for ideological purposes (the accuracy of that perception will be known better over time) and that greatly increases his credibility on the other side of the isle. The hardest thing for Obama to tackle in my mind, is bills that include issues like abortion or sex ed, because they are such "give no ground" issues to a lot of conservatives that any cooperation will be seen as a sellout to a Republican's constituents.

[ParanoiA]

You have an extreme left/right, where people who comprise those areas genuinely belief only their ideology can succeed and all other approaches are doomed to fail (think Rush), then you have the "soft left/right" near the middle, that believe one approach or the other is the best but not only way to solve problems.

 

I think you're right and it's unfortunate. There are many solutions to any given problem, generally. Left and Right solutions can both "work". I can't relate with the mantra that "socialism doesn't work" or "capitalism doesn't work", because it's really just about preference.

 

I could solve most crime if you would just give up all of your civil liberties. One could say that "works". Sure, only if your goal is to eliminate crime, but if your eye is on personal freedom, then it doesn't "work". It's all about what you're trying to achieve, and what set of advantages and disadvantages you prefer - there is no perfection to be had.

 

So, I'd like to see us quit using the word "work" and start thinking in terms of solutions with consequences we like better than the ones currently in effect. In that way, we're forced to study the consequences themselves - their detail. The focus on what "works" invites the tentative political observer to be ignorant. So instead of promoting national healthcare as a solution that "works", promote it as a solution that is "preferred". Perhaps "preferred" will prompt someone to think about what that means and figure out the difference.

 

If there's one thing Obama has become known for, it's refusing to embrace a weak solution for ideological purposes (the accuracy of that perception will be known better over time) and that greatly increases his credibility on the other side of the isle.

 

See, I find that kind of confusing. Why would you endorse an ideology if its solution is weak? A pre-formed ideology that you "join" might qualify, except that I challenge your knowledge and ability to think critically if you're just joining thought clubs and therefore you shouldn't be in office. But if your ideology is formed by your own internal machinations, and I think that goes for most of us, including Obama, then why in the world would you choose to believe in a concept that you also believe is weak?

 

I guess what I'm saying here is that I'm not talking about "party ideology", but rather individual ideology. When I say one shouldn't sell out their beliefs, I mean one shouldn't sell out their beliefs - or else they didn't really believe them.

Edited January 24, 2009 by ParanoiA

[padren]

I think you're right and it's unfortunate. There are many solutions to any given problem, generally. Left and Right solutions can both "work". I can't relate with the mantra that "socialism doesn't work" or "capitalism doesn't work", because it's really just about preference.

 

I could solve most crime if you would just give up all of your civil liberties. One could say that "works". Sure, only if your goal is to eliminate crime, but if your eye is on personal freedom, then it doesn't "work". It's all about what you're trying to achieve, and what set of advantages and disadvantages you prefer - there is no perfection to be had.

 

That's a bit extreme, but an understandable comparison. Any solution has to account for all factors to "work" in the end, a report card of sorts that gets marks on cost, effectiveness, and impacts including those on civil liberties.

 

I can agree that those aspects mean more to some than others - national security trumping civil liberties in the previous administration for instance.

 

Take education: some may believe the best way to solve the problem is to have only private schools, and utilize a voucher program so parents can choose the private school their kids go to.

 

Even if you believe that is ultimately the best way (considering where we are now and the dire need to improve education at this very moment) - would it be better to unilaterally fight only for that solution, and against any other, or support an "in term" solution that includes an increase in funding of public schools that also includes solid policies that improves the quality of education within those institutions?

 

This is the sort of compromise I consider beneficial that I am talking about.

 

So, I'd like to see us quit using the word "work" and start thinking in terms of solutions with consequences we like better than the ones currently in effect. In that way, we're forced to study the consequences themselves - their detail. The focus on what "works" invites the tentative political observer to be ignorant. So instead of promoting national healthcare as a solution that "works", promote it as a solution that is "preferred". Perhaps "preferred" will prompt someone to think about what that means and figure out the difference.

 

I'll agree about "works" but I don't think "preferred" is the correct word at all. I think "is more practical for the moment" may be better.

 

If a good free market solution could reign in the costs of health care and address the coverage and quality issues too - I'll happily support it if it's a tight solution. Ideologically I tend towards skepticism regarding that approach, but if my concerns can be put to rest I would give it a try.

 

See, I find that kind of confusing. Why would you endorse an ideology if its solution is weak? A pre-formed ideology that you "join" might qualify, except that I challenge your knowledge and ability to think critically if you're just joining thought clubs and therefore you shouldn't be in office. But if your ideology is formed by your own internal machinations, and I think that goes for most of us, including Obama, then why in the world would you choose to believe in a concept that you also believe is weak?

 

I guess what I'm saying here is that I'm not talking about "party ideology", but rather individual ideology. When I say one shouldn't sell out their beliefs, I mean one shouldn't sell out their beliefs - or else they didn't really believe them.

 

Well firstly, the ideology does not have a solution that is either strong or weak. A solution is conceived by people who ultimately have some ideological views, and that specific solution may be both ideological and weak. When you look at a lot of policy decisions, you can almost read between the lines of "we know this solution could be better and has some holes that have to be sorted out... but at least it's a step in the right direction" where right means "a step in the right ideological direction."

Those are the weak ideological solutions that I refer to, and they often get supported down ideological lines. I suppose there is another type of "weak ideological solution" in which the holes are assumed to be "minor" due to an ideological belief that they will be filled in naturally - on the conservative side the "invisible hand" is often one which Greenspan put a lot of faith in.

 

What I mean about Obama is he seems far more concerned with how well a specific program will function efficiently to the ends it was created for, and less with whether it's "left" or "right" in nature, and as such rejects ideas from the left that don't function well. I think that is why we see more confidence in him from the right than we would for say, Hillary had she been elected.

[ParanoiA]

This is the sort of compromise I consider beneficial that I am talking about.

 

I agree, that's not a sell out of beliefs.

 

I'll agree about "works" but I don't think "preferred" is the correct word at all. I think "is more practical for the moment" may be better.

 

If a good free market solution could reign in the costs of health care and address the coverage and quality issues too - I'll happily support it if it's a tight solution. Ideologically I tend towards skepticism regarding that approach' date=' but if my concerns can be put to rest I would give it a try.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I disagree here. "is more practical for the moment" sounds like solutions without forethought. Even so, doesn't that still qualify as preferred?

 

I can't agree on that kind of radical capitalist / socialist flip flopping unless the consequence of that very mixture has been reconciled with the whole economy. I think I get your point, however, it's not clear if you're putting any consideration as to how hybrid ideological solutions effect the country as a whole. I've never been a fan of that reasoning. It's a bit poetic and speciously noble. I'm not sure we don't undermine previous solutions by introducing mixed messages - a patchwork of ideas instead of a consistent philosophy. I guess I consider constitutional statements committments, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While legislators disagree on solutions to that end - preferences to that end. The "patchwork" approach wouldn't bother me if it didn't threaten to cancel those committments.

 

What I mean about Obama is he seems far more concerned with how well a specific program will function efficiently to the ends it was created for, and less with whether it's "left" or "right" in nature, and as such rejects ideas from the left that don't function well. I think that is why we see more confidence in him from the right than we would for say, Hillary had she been elected.

 

Ok, then I would consider that an example of him believing in his ideology. His ideology being guided moreso by pragmatism and results than political fundamentalism.

 

I'm sure then he wouldn't abandon "concern with how well a specific program will function efficiently to the ends it was created for" because we need to "work together". And that was the point I was making. I don't want to see legislators selling our their core convictions just to pump out legislation.

 

And again, I'm not saying it's happening, I'm just weary of it.

Edited January 24, 2009 by ParanoiA